IT Is a good sign that people have started talking about talks and analysing the causes of their failure. Different analysts have looked at it from different angles. Political, legal, diplomatic and constitutional factors have been searched and researched to find out a clue as to why the talks failed and why the government and the opposition could not agree to an acceptable solution to our political problem. The failure cannot be adequately attributed to the political stands alone of the BNP and the Awa mi League, the two main parties in the powergame. At times it appeared that a solution was very close. Both the government and the opposition came very close to accept the principle of a neutral caretaker government to run the election. But still there was no solution. Why? Perhaps an analysis of the personalities and leadership styles of the leaders of these two parties may throw some light on the conduct of their politics and consequently to their inability to come to a solution which the country needed so much.

Some leadership qualities are inborn and some are ac-Suired. Inborn qualities are lose that are inherited during birth such as mood, temperament and intelligence, to some extent. Acquired characteristics are those that are learned through the processes of education, socialisation and experience, such as knowledge, social skills, etc: Some leaders are born, while others are made.

Sometimes situations make leaders. Sometimes a person becomes leader because the circumstances favour him/ her. Both Begum Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina are situational leaders. They became leaders because particular situations favoured them. Begum Khaleda Zia became the leader of BNP after the tragic death of her husband. Ziaur Rahman, who was then the leader of his party and the President of the country. Similarly. Sheikh Hasina became the leader of Awaml League after the brutal murder of her father. Ban-gobandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who was a great leader in Bangladesh and the President of the country. These two tragic events which were instrumental In making them leaders of their respective political parties made a lasting effect not only on their psyche but also on their leadership styles and decision making processes. History has made us to witness such a unique situation when both these personalities are facing each other. Naturally, we are to suffer the consequences. In future, even if the table is. turned in which Sheikh'Hasina becomes the Prime Minister and Begum Khaleda Zia becomes the leader of the opposition, the situation is likely to remain the same. The two leaders

will face each other in the same way as they are facing now.

The traumatic experiences through which they became leaders made them skeptical, hesitant and rigid in their behaviours. They tend to doubt even their own party leaders and find it difficult to accommodate the dews of others, especially those of the opponents. When confronted with opposing ideas, situations or persons which are perceived to threaten their positions or power-base, they tend to undergo similar traumas which they experienced when they lost their dear ones and they tend to regard those opposing ideas, situations or persons as harmful and repugnant. If we understand these personality make-ups of our two leaders, then it would be easier to realize why they behaved as they did during the negotiation period. From this perspective we are to Judge the speech of Begum Khaleda Zia in Bagherhat. as reported in The Daily Star on January 28, 1996, in which she termed the boycott of the election by the opposition as a conspiracy against the independence and sovereignty of Bangladesh.

I have no personal experi-

ence about our two leaders whether they are rigid and skeptical in their day-to-day dealings, but It is evident that they showed high degree of rigidity and skepticism in their political dealings during the last two years. To me Begum Khaleda Zia appeared more rigid than Sheikh Hasina. Another characteristic of Begum Zia is that she oscillates and procrastinates in decision making. She got enough time to solve the political crisis which originated with the mass resignation of the opposition MPs. Another example of her pyschological rigidity is found in her constant reference to the constitution as an obstacle to the political solutions. Her rigidity on constitutionality is understandable if we realise her psychological make-up.

Constitution of a country is something which is to be respected. regarded and obeyed. But it must be remembered that constitution is for the people, people are not for the constitution. It can be amended. If a referendum is held now on the issue of having a neutral caretaker government to conduct the election, about 90 per cent of the people will vote for it. This demand has assumed legitimacy. Begum

Khaleda Zia failed to realise this dimension of the Issue because of her rigid personality. Sheikh Hasina was also rigid while demanding that Khaleda Zia should first resign as Prime Minister before the negotiation can be started. Sheikh Hasina should have realised what Khaleda Zia could offer to the opposition once she and her government resigned. Sheikh Hasina. however, became flexible on this point later when she said she was ready to meet Khaleda Zia while she was still the Prime Min-

later if the meeting was broadcast alive through the radio and TV.

Given the personality characteristics and the lead-efship style of Begum Khaleda Zia. It is highly unlikely that she can take tough decisions. I can say with certainty that she is far away from taking tough but realistic decisions now to shift the date of election from February 15. and to hold the election under a neutral caretaker government. If she can do these It would be a miracle in the political history of Bangladesh in which her name will be written in golden letters.

The writer Is a former Professor and Chairman of the Department of Psychology. University of Dhaka.